The point I would like to make is that we must think in terms of ensuring quality right from the first game. I wouldn't like to sit through a South Africa vs UAE or, for that matter, Holland vs England game. It is one thing to say that we must promote and develop cricket in countries such as Holland, the UAE or Kenya, and quite another to have sides from these nations, which have very little of organised cricket, taking part in the World Cup.
Any match involving these three ICC teams tends to assume farcical tones, like the one between England and Holland the other day in Peshawar. For that matter, the Indians went into the game against Kenya with visible over-confidence and it showed in our performance. We did not field well and the batting, apart from Sachin Tendulkar's century and Ajay Jadeja's gutsy showing, looked distinctly below par.
It was abundantly clear that, mentally, the Indians were not sharp enough against the Kenyans. It is quite natural for one to let his guard down when playing a weak team and that is precisely what happened when we took on the Kenyans. Such matches do not lend themselves well to such a large TV audience and certainly don't justify the costs and resources involved. Right now, these lesser known teams have been providing some batting practice and that's about the extent of their contribution to the World Cup. The criterion should be simple enough: if you want to play in the World Cup, you must be good enough.
A better way to organise the World Cup would have been to restrict the number of teams to the eight full-fledged ICC members and the winner of the ICC Cup. That would have ensured quality cricket and also would have made the tournament that much more sharp and interesting. We could have the nine teams playing a straight league, with the top four qualifying for the semi-finals or two groups with the sides playing each other twice.
The other aspect that needs to be looked into is this business of forfeiting matches, like Australia and the West Indies have done by refusing to play in Sri Lanka. The ICC must devise rules to discourage this, whatever the reasons may be. I think, the recent developments in this regard have set a bad precedent.
Now that the three qualifiers are here, I find Kenya the best of the lot. They have a well-organised cricket structure, with a regular league and quite a few club teams. At least so far, they have proved that they are no pushovers. India learnt it the hard way in the opening game. The Indians took on Sri Lanka in the 1979 World Cup with a similar attitude and ended up losing the game. Against Kenya, our field-ing was pretty bad. It looked as though they had not put in much effort at the conditioning camp in Bangalore last month. But, fortunately for us, it was not a pressure game.
It was so against the West Indies at Gwalior. I could see it on their faces when the Indians walked out to field that they were very determined. It was a big game and Srinath's two wickets in the early overs turned the game around. Sachin, following his big 100 against the Kenyans which put him in the groove, batted very well and I wouldn't read too much into the two chances he gave. They are part of the game, but it was good to see him back in top form.
Sidhu and Jadeja looked out of sorts while batting. It was clear to me that they were not match-fit. I mean, their feet were not moving and it showed when they faced up to Ambrose, who bowled a magnificent spell early in the innings.
As well as Sachin played, I will give equal credit to Srinath. The stint in English county cricket last summer has worked wonders with his bowling. He has developed the ball which goes straight through and gets him the wicket. His rhythm is somuch better and he is bowling with a lot of fire. Like Kumble, Srinath gives 100 per cent, whatever be the game.
But I would like to see both these boys bat a bit. Both are capable batsmen and it is a pity that they are not practising as much at the nets. After all, Kumble has a 100 in a Duleep Trophy game and I know for a fact that Srinath is a better bats-man than he is made out to be. If you recall, in the 1983 World Cup, it was the tail-enders, from number six to eight downwards, who got us most of the runs and it is always good to have such players lower down the order.
